klop
1st Level-
Posts
146 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Everything posted by klop
-
Like others said, the texts you list are not at the same level. For example, Amemiya is a classic theory text and it is commonly used as a reference for a second year econometrics course, while Ruud and Greene and some others are meant for the first year courses. A good question is, why do you need the text? Is that for self-teaching or for reference? I heard Greene is a popular reference text but not a very good one to learn material from. Also, a lot of econometrics professors do not even stick closely to the text that they assign. Each one seems to have his own set of notes used in graduate courses. You also missed one popular text, "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data" by Woodridge. I have heard many good things about it and I like the organization of its content better than Ruud, so I think I'll get a copy for myself eventually for reference.
-
Not many schools allow you "test out" of first year courses (except possibly for econometrics). There are some exceptions, like CMU. However, I still wouldn't count on being able to pass the quals at a more reputable department without taking their theory sequence. Each year a big chunk of students who complete the first year theory courses at their department still fail to pass the qualifying examination. Transferring out of a Ph.D. program usually means losing a year. Of course, it is more likely you'll do well and pass the quals at the instution where you transfer if you have already studied the first year courses elsewhere. As for UDel profs, don't worry about them. It's unlikely, adcoms will know someone from UDel who knows you and even if they do, they have far more important things to do than talk to UDel professors about your situation.
-
I suspect that becoming even a top student at UDel might not impress the adcoms at the top-30 departments because it's is reasonable to assume that UDel's pool of incoming students is weaker and the courses and grading standards are less regorous. Also, UDel's fall transcripts might not be ready on time to meet the deadlines of many economics departments. UDel's professors might be reluctant to give a strong LoR after only one semester there and it's going to be hard to also get them to write a LoR on time .. my $0.02.
-
Why bother attending the university you don't like, specially if you think you have a chance to be admitted to a more desirable department? Your situation is indeed special. It's possible that your quantitative GRE score really did hurt you. Most of the top-40 or so economics departments will be reluctant to admit someone with quantitative GRE score of only 720. However, the GRE score can be easily improved. Also, the lack of normal real analysis course also may have hurt you too. If I were you I would find a university nearby that offers a course in real analysis in summer or in the fall semester. Doing well in it can certainly improve your chances.
-
I would say that most of present-day academic economists are free-marketers (each to a different extent) in the sense that they generally favor the free markets whenever they lead to more efficient outcomes. Having said that, economics is not about preaching the efficiency of free markets. It's about the tools of economic analysis which you should apply to evaluate the economic and public policy decisions. Even Milton Friedman, whose views can be classified as libertarian, wrote that each economic policy choice has to be carefully evaluated with respect to efficiency outcomes. This is something that many people outside of economics can't gasp. I once had a roommate who was a fresh transfer student majoring in political science. He immedeately declared that he has socialist views and that he favors "very big government". Then he eargerly proceeded to ask me: "So what are your views towards regulation?", like the economics can give you a straight answer on whether all regulation is good and bad. Free-market vs other school of thought is not really the question you should ask yourself. You should ask yourself what are the fields of economics that you're interested in and then see which schools have an active research group in that area. If you haven't decided yet, then you should apply to the larger departments which will offer you more possibilities than other schools. By the way, it is true that Monetarism is associated with Milton Friedman who is also a very prominent free-marketer. However, that doesn't imply that monetarism is about free markets in general. Monetarism a view within the macroeconomic theory and policy. But I can see why you'd ask this question. A lot of introductory macroeconomics textbooks talk only about Keynesian and Monetary economics leaving one with a feeling that those are still the prevailing theories in macroeconomics today.
-
Why not try to apply to other universities where funding is more plentiful? Just have a good safety margin in terms of where you apply so that it'd be more likely that one of them will give you a decent funding offer. Meanwhile, get a job and start paying off your debts. Of course, if you go for an American Ph.D. program then you're likely to face a different type of cost, your time, because most of the top-50 American Ph.D. programs do not allow transferring any coursework. However, given a relatively high level of preparation and a financial aid offer that doesn't come with time-consuming RA or TA duties attached, you can still hope to complete a Ph.D. degree in 4 years at least at some universities.
-
Reapplying for Econ PhD - Evaluate my situation
klop replied to RonnieT1283's topic in Graduate Admissions
I don't know how ASU fares in macro theory but Kydland wrote in his autobiography that his intention is to teach and do reasearch until he drops and this is why he went to UCSB after a short stay at U of T which requires the faculty members to retire after 65 or so. Kydland also mentioned in his autobiography that he would like to setup an institute for research in aggregate economics at UCSB. However, I don't know whether his stay at UCSB has had any impact on their macroeconomics program so far. I am also wondering about the state of macroeconomics at UIUC and U Washington. Is anyone going there this year? -
Reapplying for Econ PhD - Evaluate my situation
klop replied to RonnieT1283's topic in Graduate Admissions
JKRIS, what are the non-top-30 schools that do "really get into" macroeconomics? I wonder specially about the following: UCSB, ASU, WUSTL, Boston College, Pitt (though I suspect the last one is quite competitive to get into). Does Iowa have a good macro group? BTW, I just noticed that Steve Williamson is moving from Iowa to WUSTL. -
For example this one: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/graduate-admissions/45089-uclas-out.html
-
It seems like the site manager created a new form for Economics Ph.D. applicants. Now it's going to get more confusing as I am sure some people will keep posting here..
-
It seems like the graduate admissions forum posts posted in the second half of 2005 and much of 2006 stopped being indexed. For example, searching for UCLA does't render much.
-
I was undergraduate for the past 3 years and I basically had no life outside of school to the point that I think that was becoming unhealthy (well, beside the school I was working >20hours/week). Why will the graduate school be any better? All these things make me wonder if I should put my life on hold for another 5 years (actually 6 since I wasn't admitted anywhere this time). I shared these worries with one professor and he said yes, the graduate school IS like that. Somehow I had a program in my mind for quite some time that I should be married by 30, just like my parents. Besides, entering the bachelor market at the age of 35 or so will certainly reduce my options in terms of who I can meet.
-
Any ranking about finance graduate courses?
klop replied to nokturnalmortum's topic in Graduate Admissions
I am not sure why you say FE programs are geared towards teaching. Most FE/Mathematical finance Masters program websites say that those degree programs are terminal and are meant as a preparation for industry work in things like securities trading, risk management, portofolio management, etc. The tradional finance programs are more geared towards corporate financial management although many of them may include an optional quantitative finance component. Now, if you get Ph.D. in financial economics or finance, then that does prepare you more for teaching and research but there are still industry jobs for finance Ph.Ds. too. Why not just get MBA with a concentration in finance? I believe US News does publish rankings of MBA programs by field concentrations, including finance. It seems like stand-alone finance programs are becoming less common. For example, take look at the universities whose MBA programs are among the top-30 on US News and see how many of them offer degrees in finance. You'll see that there aren't many. -
IMHO. I don't think starting around 30 is too old as long as you have already arranged your personal life (e.g. have a family of your own) and you're attending a decent economics Ph.D. program that's likely to help you graduate as soon as possible (4-5 years) and to place you well. If you haven't arranged your personal life by this age then it's less likely you're going to have time while in the graduate school (or at least during the first two to three years untill you pass the qualifying examination). Of course, people have different priorities, for some starting a family at the age of 40 may be fine. For me it's not. That's why I feel extremely frustrated that I didn't make it into any Ph.D. program this year. I'll be 29 in fall of 2007 and I am not sure if I still will be willing to start a Ph.D. program at a such old age if I am not married by then. Plus, my time and what I do with it is now worth to me twice as much compared to when I was 24 and I start wondering whether going to graduate school is still worth it if I can't get into a top-25 (or so) economics department. I certainly wouldn't be worried about the ranking or the other things if I was in the first half of 20s (but I'll probably give it another shot anyways and see what happens).
-
This is a good course to learn how to write proofs in order to prepare yourself for a more abstract math course like real analysis. However, it doesn't really cover any statistics and the probability section deals with discrete random variables only.
-
I agree but I lacked this wisdom 6 months ago.
-
I am certain that I wasn't admitted due to a low GPA and the fact that I sent out the applications mostly to some of the top-25 US departments plus USC and UC Davis (UC Davis had one of the earliest deadlines and my SoP sent there was specially bad because I started the whole process somewhat late). The end result was a rejection from everywhere and a waiting list position at Minnesota. My GPA for the last 2 years is only about 3.25 at a major public university known to have specially tough grading standards. Why so low? I was taking a near full-time course load while working at least 20 hours per week. My parents weren't in position to give me $25K/year and I didn't want to take more loans on top of what I had loaned during the earlier years. The courses consisted of mostly math and stats. Every semester my GPA was below my expectations but I thought every time: "well, now I know how the system works, so I'll do well next semester" and kept digging myself into a bigger hole by taking courses taught by professors known to be specially tough but enlightening, honors courses, graduate courses, etc. Since the time spent in the classroom was about 15 hours/week and the rest of the time was either work or occasional office hour visits I didn't get to study until I got home which was around 8pm. That's the least productive time of the day for me. It was simply not possible physically to do well in all classes as a typical math/stats class required about 12 hours of work per week outside of classroom, or perhaps somewhat less if you do work in groups but given my schedule it was difficult to find study group members for each class, so I had only about 4 hours for studying during a workday. I had As, Bs, as well as Cs in math courses (though Cs were in classes not explicitly required for economics admissions, modern algebra and complex analysis). A few times I was just plain unlucky. Once I had an A+ in an advanced math course (far more advanced and difficult than the same course taught by other professors). The professor who taught it refused to give me LoR because according to him the work I did was not consistent enough to demonstrate my ability to do graduate level work (even if outside math). I was astonished. If I had A+, surely that meant I did better than others, as for consistency, yeah I skept 2 or 3 homework assignments but I thought that my attenuating circumstances were good enough to explain that away to this professor. Another time I enrolled in a modern algebra course taught by some madman who covered about 1/3 more material than what others cover in this course at this university and placed 50% of grade into the homeworks (without dropping lowest grades) which I started always the last moment as I had to finish mathematical statistics and linear algebra courses homeworks too and I knew they mattered more than group and field theory when economics is councerned. So I ended getting a C- in that course but As in the other two. People who did far worse than me on the algebra final had As and Bs which basically meant they had time to meet and work in groups, unlike me, but many weren't really that outstanding. When I talked to one of my recommenders about some of these issues he said: "Taking real analysis with professor X was your problem. B with X means an A with nearly anyone else who teaches this course." Professor X himself told me I am a good student and I would have had an A if I submitted all the homeworks (maybe I skept 3/10). So, this is the way I was working. I had no social life or any fun while in school. By the end of senior year I started having slight chest pains, surely due to the erratic sleep schedule, stress and the lack of exercise but that went away after I started to swim. I don't really know how to expess all the crap I had to go though as an undergraduate (which involved moving between universities and countries and almost always working while in school) without turning my SoP into a statement of apology. Another problem was that I aimed too high. The reason is that I talked about choosing schools to my econometrics professor and he was very encouraging and suggested that given the supposedly known tough grading standards and my circumstances I should be admitted to a good department. He told me: "I myself had Cs in some economics courses and went to MIT." (2 decades ago). I suppose if he was encouraging, he must have given me a decent LoR? I know that another math professor told me that he will write me a -really- good LoR but I haven't read it. Sorry if it's sounding like I am whinning. I am. I do feel bitter that all the hard work I have done isn't paying off. No, I don't want to study outside of US, certainly not at a less known European university. "Ph.D. at any price" is not my goal. If I have a good shot at a _good_ top-50 American program where I know I will have some of the best mentors in my field, I'll try again for Fall 2007. Othewise, I think I am going to have to move on with my life.
-
When you submit your GRE scores on UCSD's electronic application form, you get a warning if they're below a certain value. The web page said it's a departmental requirement. I got it for my verbal score.
-
US citizen, non-native English speaker.
-
Well, I am almost certain Fall 2007 is the last shot that I have because I'll be 30 years old in Fall 2008. In fact, I am still debating whether I should reapply even for Fall 2007. I don't think it will be worth it if I enter a Ph.D. program in Fall 2008. My best years are passing by. My old classmates are getting married, buy houses, move up the job ladder in their companies, and live normal lifes NOW but if I wait for so long I'll be basically a student until 35 years old. I wouldn't mind that if I was poor coming from a poor country but there is certainly an opportunity cost if you're an American and a college graduate. There are so many other options: look for an interesting job, become a quant, MBA, etc. If I was younger then I would certainly take the longer route as you are suggesting. I might still have a shot at -some- Economics Ph.D. program but certainly not one of Minnesota's calliber (e.g perhaps one of U Washington, MSU, UIUC, Colorado, ASU, UCSB, etc, none of which I applied to this year). I certainly was overly optimistic when choosing universities this year.
-
My GRE score was 790Q/510V/5.0AW. I remember that UCSD's application form said that applicants with a verbal score below 540 (or was it 560?) will be automatically filtered out. Is that true? Did anyone get in with a lower verbal score? Should I retake GRE? Will it hurt me if I get a lower quantitative score next time? I am surprised I got 510 on verbal. I didn't study much for it but I did take a couple of free practice tests and I think I got 790/560 on the last one.
-
One thing I can do next Fall semester is enroll in an undergraduate research seminar in labor economics which will involve writing a paper. I expect that no more than 10 students will enroll in that seminar and therefore the interaction with the professor will probably be substantial. Unfortunately, even if this paper is going to be publishable, I will have no time to submit it anywhere before sending out the applications in December. Do you that think having an unpublished paper will be of any help? Alternatively, do you think it would be better to attend a graduate microeconomic theory course? I suppose a good grade in it could make a difference. The only thing I am worried about is that I might be overcommitting myself to Ph.D. admission (e.g. if I fail again, then I suppose these two courses will not really build any skills for most real-world jobs). As for the SoP, I am still not sure how to write a good SoP since I am afraid I don't have anything intelligent to say on the subjects that interest me. I suppose that many applicants who haven't taken graduate theory courses some time recently are facing this problem too.
-
So, I just got an email from Minnesota saying that this year's class is now full and I didn't make it in. I am wondering what can I do to improve my profile for the next year. I think SoP was one of my weak points which can still be improved (unlike say, my undergraduate GPA). Would working as a research assistant for just five months really improve the odds for Ph.D. admissions (since I can start some time in August)? A full-time RA position would be nice, as long as it can help me with the Ph.D. application process and as long as I am paid enough to make the ends meet. The location doesn't matter much but it should probably be some research institution such as a major research university. The problem is that I haven't taken advanced courses on subjects that interest me, such as financial economics or macroeconomics, and I don't have any research experience (not like I'd mind doing something related to other subjets). I might take an undergraduate course in financial economics that uses some calculus and statistics this summer. I also took two graduate courses in econometrics and I am currently auditing a course in optimization (linear and non-linear programming). The first half of econometrics was basically an overview of classical statistical inference while the second course touched a variety of subjects such as asymptotics, GLS, MLE, 2SLS, discrete responce models, panel data but basically no time series models. I have a working knowledge of Matlab, R, and some general purpose languages. What kind of research assistant position could I obtain with this knowledge and how do I go about finding one?
-
I got an impression that the economics departments are serious about making sure that most of their students finish in five years or less and looking at the resumes of most of their job market candidates confirms that. Though, 5 years seems to be more common than 4. Most economics programs are structured so that you're done with required coursework and field quals by the end of third year at worst. I heard Ph.D. in sciences takes longer (avg 6 years in physics) and I have a friend who is something like 8th year electrical engineering Ph.D. student.
-
I think it's not a big deal although I hear that it is a common practice for the hosts at the doctoral commencement ceremonies to announce which ones of the Ph.D. candidates were initially waitlisted for admissions. Moreover, the fact that you were waitlisted at your alma matter will haunt you for the rest of your academic career. If you ever publish any articles or books, the editors will never forget to add next to your name and your current place of employment a note that warns the readers that you were initially waitlisted at your alma matter. Even after you obtain an academic position at some university, the faculty rosters at that department will say in parenthesis under your name and research interests: "Ph.D, Name of University, year, (admitted from the waiting list)." So think very carefully before accepting that offer.